Serfdom and slavery are not bad things for those too irresponsible or lazy to care for themselves, which is more people than I'd care to admit.
However, the Puritan ideal of the yeoman (every man a king) is also the Biblical ideal of Deuteronomy. To support such a system, Deuteronomy also imposed strict limits on usury, loan length (no more than 7 years), and rights of land owners.
15 and 30 year mortgages are already slavish and usurious devices, and only a marginal improvement above serfdom.
However, the Puritan ideal of the yeoman (every man a king) is also the Biblical ideal of Deuteronomy. To support such a system, Deuteronomy also imposed strict limits on usury, loan length (no more than 7 years), and rights of land owners.
15 and 30 year mortgages are already slavish and usurious devices, and only a marginal improvement above serfdom.
👍16
Even more so than debt or wrecked institutions, the Boomers’ ultimate legacy will be mass immigration. The original Boomer generation was overwhelmingly white, probably around 85%. When the Boomers entered their 20s around 1970, America was at its lowest foreign-born population share ever. Yet they created a world in which their own children will be turned into racial minorities.
-- Aaron Renn
-- Aaron Renn
👍6🗿1
I have seen numerous stats floating around to the effect of women being less interested in dating, marriage, and children than men. And this appears to not be just a stated preference but also a revealed preference; rates of singleness and childlessness have consistently increased.
However, as usual with women, this is by and large a giant sh*t test. They really aren't interested in the bottom 80-90% of men, so it's not entirely untrue, but most women will happily modify their preferences for a man in the top 10-20%.
So don't blackpill, and don't write off women, not even the women who say these things. Rather, elevate yourself into the top 10-20% (which is easier than ever now).
However, as usual with women, this is by and large a giant sh*t test. They really aren't interested in the bottom 80-90% of men, so it's not entirely untrue, but most women will happily modify their preferences for a man in the top 10-20%.
So don't blackpill, and don't write off women, not even the women who say these things. Rather, elevate yourself into the top 10-20% (which is easier than ever now).
👍13
Pharaoh in Egypt was the last person to ever want Jews in his country. Telling, being that's the first foreign nation they ever occupied.
👍6
It is imperative to raise our children with the stories of Beowulf, Homer, Virgil, Chaucer, and the Edda. They must know the art of Michelangelo, Rembrandt, and Giotto. They must see at least images of buildings like the Colonge Cathedral. They must know the music of Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, and Mozart.
They must never believe the lie that "Whites have no culture."
They must never believe the lie that "Whites have no culture."
⚡23🔥2
When forty winters shall besiege thy brow
And dig deep trenches in thy beauty’s field,
Thy youth’s proud livery, so gazed on now,
Will be a tattered weed, of small worth held.
Then being asked where all thy beauty lies—
Where all the treasure of thy lusty days—
To say within thine own deep-sunken eyes
Were an all-eating shame and thriftless praise.
How much more praise deserved thy beauty’s use,
If thou couldst answer "This fair child of mine,
Shall sum my count and make my old excuse",
Proving his beauty by succession thine.
This were to be new made when thou art old,
And see thy blood warm when thou feel’st it cold.
-- William Shakespeare, Sonnet 2
And dig deep trenches in thy beauty’s field,
Thy youth’s proud livery, so gazed on now,
Will be a tattered weed, of small worth held.
Then being asked where all thy beauty lies—
Where all the treasure of thy lusty days—
To say within thine own deep-sunken eyes
Were an all-eating shame and thriftless praise.
How much more praise deserved thy beauty’s use,
If thou couldst answer "This fair child of mine,
Shall sum my count and make my old excuse",
Proving his beauty by succession thine.
This were to be new made when thou art old,
And see thy blood warm when thou feel’st it cold.
-- William Shakespeare, Sonnet 2
👍6🔥3
A belated happy Thanksgiving to everyone, except those that hate, steal, murder, and destory everything America stands for.
Thankful that Trump is honing in on the big issue....
Thankful that Trump is honing in on the big issue....
👍13
Forwarded from Protestant Post (Dr. Basedologist)
Hyperborean St. Nicholas slapping the African heretic Arius c. 325 A.D.
🔥13😁5🗿1
Forwarded from European Reformation Heritage (Maxime PLF)
Luther Praised Calvin's Writings & Sent Him His Regards Despite Their Differences over the Lord's Supper
"In his reply to Sadolet...Calvin in 1539 wrote: “Christ’s presence, whereby we are ingrafted into him, we by no means exclude from the Supper. Neither do we, indeed, obscure it, guarding only against the assumption of local confinement, against the glorious body of Christ being dragged down into earthly elements, against the fiction of transubstantiation of the bread into Christ to be thereupon adored in lieu of Christ.”
It was to this tract that Luther referred in his letter of Oct. 14, 1539, to Bucer, saying: “Give my respectful greetings to John Sturm and John Calvin, whose tracts I have read with singular pleasure.” Calvin highly appreciated this recognition, and in a letter to Farel of Nov. 20, 1539, remarked: “Crato, one of our printers, lately returned from Wittenberg, bringing a letter from Luther to Bucer in which the following was written: ‘Give my respectful greetings to Sturm and Calvin, whose tracts I have read with singular pleasure.’”
The following words are in the autograph manunoscript, but canceled: “And now consider what I there say on the eucharist. Think of Luther’s magnanimity. One may without difficulty understand what cause those may have who so persistently refuse to unite with him.”
—Dr. Augustus Lawrence Graebner, Calvin and the Augsburg Confession
"Luther never said one unkind word of Calvin...He never saw him, but read some of his books, and heard of him through Melanchthon...Melanchthon sent salutations from Luther and Bugenhagen to Calvin, and informed him that he was in high favor with Luther, notwithstanding the difference of views on the real presence, and that Luther hoped for better opinions, but was willing to bear something from such a good man.
Calvin had expressed his views on the Lord’s Supper...in his answer to Sadolet, which Luther read "with delight,"...Luther must have known these views. He is reported to have seen a copy of Calvin’s tract on the eucharist in a bookstore at Wittenberg, and, after reading it, made the remark: "The author is certainly a learned and pious man: if Zwingli and Oecolampadius had from the start declared themselves in this way, there would probably not have arisen such a controversy."
—Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 7
"In his reply to Sadolet...Calvin in 1539 wrote: “Christ’s presence, whereby we are ingrafted into him, we by no means exclude from the Supper. Neither do we, indeed, obscure it, guarding only against the assumption of local confinement, against the glorious body of Christ being dragged down into earthly elements, against the fiction of transubstantiation of the bread into Christ to be thereupon adored in lieu of Christ.”
It was to this tract that Luther referred in his letter of Oct. 14, 1539, to Bucer, saying: “Give my respectful greetings to John Sturm and John Calvin, whose tracts I have read with singular pleasure.” Calvin highly appreciated this recognition, and in a letter to Farel of Nov. 20, 1539, remarked: “Crato, one of our printers, lately returned from Wittenberg, bringing a letter from Luther to Bucer in which the following was written: ‘Give my respectful greetings to Sturm and Calvin, whose tracts I have read with singular pleasure.’”
The following words are in the autograph manunoscript, but canceled: “And now consider what I there say on the eucharist. Think of Luther’s magnanimity. One may without difficulty understand what cause those may have who so persistently refuse to unite with him.”
—Dr. Augustus Lawrence Graebner, Calvin and the Augsburg Confession
"Luther never said one unkind word of Calvin...He never saw him, but read some of his books, and heard of him through Melanchthon...Melanchthon sent salutations from Luther and Bugenhagen to Calvin, and informed him that he was in high favor with Luther, notwithstanding the difference of views on the real presence, and that Luther hoped for better opinions, but was willing to bear something from such a good man.
Calvin had expressed his views on the Lord’s Supper...in his answer to Sadolet, which Luther read "with delight,"...Luther must have known these views. He is reported to have seen a copy of Calvin’s tract on the eucharist in a bookstore at Wittenberg, and, after reading it, made the remark: "The author is certainly a learned and pious man: if Zwingli and Oecolampadius had from the start declared themselves in this way, there would probably not have arisen such a controversy."
—Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 7
👍10
> But immigrants bring tasty diverse food!!!
There is literally an entire story in the Bible written about a man who sells his birthright for a bowl of soup.
God hated him for it.
And he found no chance for repentance though he sought it with tears.
There is literally an entire story in the Bible written about a man who sells his birthright for a bowl of soup.
God hated him for it.
And he found no chance for repentance though he sought it with tears.
⚡21
Answering Kevin DeYoung's "Six Questions for Christian Nationalists"
1. Do you unequivocally renounce antisemitism, racism, and Nazism?
> No. Not at all. I would not be wiser than God and condemn as sin that which He is either silent on or calls Good (cf. Isaiah 5).
2. When and how does the nation act as a corporate moral person?
> The entirety of the OT is filled with innumerable examples of God blessing and cursing nations as nations when they collectively, whether de jure or de facto, obey or rebel. Consider Deuteronomy 28, and read it in the KJV or GNV. Notice how God addresses Israel as "thee" and "thou" (i.e., the singular second person). He is not speaking to a plural group of individuals but rather a singular nation, and judges them accordingly.
3. What is the purpose of civil government?
> St. Paul saith in Romans 13 that the magistrate is to be "a terror to bad conduct" and that bears the sword not in vain but to "execute God's wrath on the wrongdoer." Fundamentally, to enforce God's law.
4. What does it mean for the civil magistrate to promote true religion?
> To enforce the basics of God's law, the Decalogue at minimum. To call synods when needed and days of feasting and fasting. To show systematic favoritism to biblical forms of Christianity if not banning false ones. In short what basically every Christian country did till 1800, and many till 1950.
5. Was the First Amendment a mistake?
> Yes. Or to add nuance, no. You see, I have no objection to the 1A as written; however, nearly every judicial interpretation of it has been to the detriment of Christ's Church.
6. What is the historical example of the political order you would like to see in America?
Any Christian nation from the conversion of Constantine until 1945. The models which seem to work best are Medieval England and Germany with their system of monarchy restrained by local nobles, similar to the Roman emperor balanced by the Senate. More dictatorial monarchies can work (Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Spain, and France). And local and democratic systems can also work (America, Switzerland, and Holland), and while I believe there are deficiencies in this model, they are worlds better than our status quo. In fact, I would accept the pagan Norse, Greek, or Roman systems as better than our own.
1. Do you unequivocally renounce antisemitism, racism, and Nazism?
> No. Not at all. I would not be wiser than God and condemn as sin that which He is either silent on or calls Good (cf. Isaiah 5).
2. When and how does the nation act as a corporate moral person?
> The entirety of the OT is filled with innumerable examples of God blessing and cursing nations as nations when they collectively, whether de jure or de facto, obey or rebel. Consider Deuteronomy 28, and read it in the KJV or GNV. Notice how God addresses Israel as "thee" and "thou" (i.e., the singular second person). He is not speaking to a plural group of individuals but rather a singular nation, and judges them accordingly.
3. What is the purpose of civil government?
> St. Paul saith in Romans 13 that the magistrate is to be "a terror to bad conduct" and that bears the sword not in vain but to "execute God's wrath on the wrongdoer." Fundamentally, to enforce God's law.
4. What does it mean for the civil magistrate to promote true religion?
> To enforce the basics of God's law, the Decalogue at minimum. To call synods when needed and days of feasting and fasting. To show systematic favoritism to biblical forms of Christianity if not banning false ones. In short what basically every Christian country did till 1800, and many till 1950.
5. Was the First Amendment a mistake?
> Yes. Or to add nuance, no. You see, I have no objection to the 1A as written; however, nearly every judicial interpretation of it has been to the detriment of Christ's Church.
6. What is the historical example of the political order you would like to see in America?
Any Christian nation from the conversion of Constantine until 1945. The models which seem to work best are Medieval England and Germany with their system of monarchy restrained by local nobles, similar to the Roman emperor balanced by the Senate. More dictatorial monarchies can work (Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Spain, and France). And local and democratic systems can also work (America, Switzerland, and Holland), and while I believe there are deficiencies in this model, they are worlds better than our status quo. In fact, I would accept the pagan Norse, Greek, or Roman systems as better than our own.
⚡10👍2
North Sea Legacy
Photo
He was a brave Anglo explorer. And in this house, Cecil Rhodes is a hero. End of story.
Spengler's Faustian Man personified.
Spengler's Faustian Man personified.
🔥19
Forwarded from Aesthetics and shitposts (FloridaManDixie_83)
Total Christmas Spirit. Give gifts. Spread cheer. Roundhouse kick a gift into your neighbor's chimney. Slam dunk a toy into your kid's stocking. Celebrate Christ. Prepare a Christmas dinner with your family. Launch Santa's sleigh through the night sky. Bake a Christmas ham in the oven. Toss celebratory messages into your friends' inboxes. Set up a Christmas tree. Judo throw gift cards into your coworker's hands. Drink some eggnog. Receive your Christmas bonus. Chop firewood in half. Wrap colorful presents for your loved ones. Play Christmas carols on your commute. Put a Christmas hat on. Enjoy a steamy cup of hot cocoa. Eat candy canes. Watch a holiday movie. Be holly and jolly wherever you go. Make sure you dress warm. Sit by the fireplace. Think about the people who make you happy. Mandatory wishes of happy holidays. Grind cinnamon to add to your drinks. Play in the snow. Help your neighbor shovel their driveway. Run down the stairs when you hear Santa coming down the chimney. Feed cookies to Santa. Merry Christmas.
👍4😁2
Forwarded from Kinism
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was the first U.S. law to define who could become a citizen. Signed into law by George Washington himself, the act highlights how the Founders perceived a degree of common kinship as integral to the state.
@Kinism
@Kinism
⚡12
Conservatives are contemplating a plan to remove property taxes in several states, including my state of FL. This is a really bad idea for 3 big reasons.
1) The replacement sales tax suggested would actually be quite onerous, and is in effect a regressive tax structure.
2) This reduces the cost of real estate ownership making land and housing speculation much more affordable, and allowing investors to further displace regular home owners and even renters.
3) This is just another handout to boomers, an attempt for Republicans to buy their votes. Boomer voting patterns did not change when Bush expanded mediare, so I don't think this will really work anyway. People somehow forget that old folks who own their house have more wealth than young people who do not.
More reasonable ideas would be to increase the homestead exemption and index it to inflation. But I'm really not in any mood to give boomers tax breaks while they hoard all the affordable homes in 55+ deed restricted communities.
1) The replacement sales tax suggested would actually be quite onerous, and is in effect a regressive tax structure.
2) This reduces the cost of real estate ownership making land and housing speculation much more affordable, and allowing investors to further displace regular home owners and even renters.
3) This is just another handout to boomers, an attempt for Republicans to buy their votes. Boomer voting patterns did not change when Bush expanded mediare, so I don't think this will really work anyway. People somehow forget that old folks who own their house have more wealth than young people who do not.
More reasonable ideas would be to increase the homestead exemption and index it to inflation. But I'm really not in any mood to give boomers tax breaks while they hoard all the affordable homes in 55+ deed restricted communities.
👍8🔥3🤣1
Hot take for today: I think that adoption, or at least state-sponsored adoption, is sinful.
Feel free to leave some indignant replies.
1) The vast majority of children in the foster system are not orphans. The US does not keep these statistics, but estimates indicate 90%+ have at least one living parent, not to mention extended family. The foster system allows mass abandonment of children, underwritten by Christians. In many cases, adoptive families go to court to take children away from parents or family members who actively want to keep them.
2) It opens up all sorts of other sinful doors, such as gay couples adopting or adopting children of other races.
3) The legal fiction of adoption results in lying, calling people "mother" and "father" who simply are not.
4) There is no example of an unrelated person adopting someone in Scripture. The best example is perhaps Esther, who is raised by her uncle. With no godly examples, we ought to conclude it is discouraged.
5) God often closes the womb as punishment, and the Scriptural response is to pray for children, not to attempt to circumvent God's judgment.
6) Christians have ordinarily cared for true orphans in orphanages or monasteries, not by disrupting intact households and thereby spreading dysfunction.
7) The handful of references to God adopting believers (υιοθεσια) is grossly taken out of context by proponents of adoption. For instance, St. Paul says Israel was adopted by God (Rom. 9:4) but God refers to Israel as His firstborn son (Ex. 4:22). Clearly God has created us all and has a "natural" relationship to us in that sense; adoption is used particularly to refer to Gentiles being brought in (cf. Rom. 11) who were not a natural branch. In other words, adoption is corporate, not individualistic. To infer from this that we should sacrifice our natural children to adopt children in the way that God did is to completely pervert the atonement and misunderstand adoption.
Feel free to leave some indignant replies.
1) The vast majority of children in the foster system are not orphans. The US does not keep these statistics, but estimates indicate 90%+ have at least one living parent, not to mention extended family. The foster system allows mass abandonment of children, underwritten by Christians. In many cases, adoptive families go to court to take children away from parents or family members who actively want to keep them.
2) It opens up all sorts of other sinful doors, such as gay couples adopting or adopting children of other races.
3) The legal fiction of adoption results in lying, calling people "mother" and "father" who simply are not.
4) There is no example of an unrelated person adopting someone in Scripture. The best example is perhaps Esther, who is raised by her uncle. With no godly examples, we ought to conclude it is discouraged.
5) God often closes the womb as punishment, and the Scriptural response is to pray for children, not to attempt to circumvent God's judgment.
6) Christians have ordinarily cared for true orphans in orphanages or monasteries, not by disrupting intact households and thereby spreading dysfunction.
7) The handful of references to God adopting believers (υιοθεσια) is grossly taken out of context by proponents of adoption. For instance, St. Paul says Israel was adopted by God (Rom. 9:4) but God refers to Israel as His firstborn son (Ex. 4:22). Clearly God has created us all and has a "natural" relationship to us in that sense; adoption is used particularly to refer to Gentiles being brought in (cf. Rom. 11) who were not a natural branch. In other words, adoption is corporate, not individualistic. To infer from this that we should sacrifice our natural children to adopt children in the way that God did is to completely pervert the atonement and misunderstand adoption.
🔥12👎3🤔1
This Dickie Spencer speech from 2016 actually goes incredibly hard.
https://youtu.be/1o6-bi3jlxk?si=Re1XUANEMNHZyeFN
https://youtu.be/1o6-bi3jlxk?si=Re1XUANEMNHZyeFN
YouTube
'Hail Trump!': Richard Spencer Speech Excerpts
Video of an alt-right conference in Washington, D.C., where Trump’s victory was met with cheers and Nazi salutes.
Read the full article: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/
Subscribe to The Atlantic on…
Read the full article: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/
Subscribe to The Atlantic on…
⚡2👍2